Long Run for 800m.

mark b wrote:

Snell. Two Olympic golds, WR for 880yards/800metres set on grass (!). Longest run 22 miles regularly in his build up phase.

Ovett. Olympic gold. 20 weeks at over 100 miles per weekin the winter before his gold medal.

Ovett had a PR of 1:44xx, he MAY win NCAAs with that time. Also, Ovett was a miler who dabbled in the 800m. He won the 800m in Moscow precisely because Coe decided to up his mileage and didn't develop his 800m speed.

Anyways, this is all besides the point. Let us assume OP is not a freak of nature as Ovett and Coe were. Let us discuss how MOST successful 800m runners train. Low mileage, high speed.

Whenever I see these kinds of threads, I usually read them as "what is the least amount of work I need to do to get better?"

you seem to be very adamant that a runner would somehow be in worse shape if they ran a 90 minute long run as opposed to a 60 minute one. If you are truly trying to give yourself every advantage in a race, is it really so frightening to run a little longer? What do you perceive will happen if an 800 runner goes longer than 60 minutes in a run?

49 400m runners who run 1:50 are a dime a dozen. When you stop looking for shortcuts, those same runners could be 1:47.

Guessing wrote:

Whenever I see these kinds of threads, I usually read them as "what is the least amount of work I need to do to get better?"

you seem to be very adamant that a runner would somehow be in worse shape if they ran a 90 minute long run as opposed to a 60 minute one. If you are truly trying to give yourself every advantage in a race, is it really so frightening to run a little longer? What do you perceive will happen if an 800 runner goes longer than 60 minutes in a run?

49 400m runners who run 1:50 are a dime a dozen. When you stop looking for shortcuts, those same runners could be 1:47.

Thanks for not answering the question about what school you ran for. Admit that was a lie.

It's not a matter of work. Any idiot can do a 13 mile long run and pray that somehow the extra mitochondria and capillaries will somehow magically make him fast on the track. Hobby joggers excel at the long, slow, distance.

It's about training SMART for your event in the most effective and efficient manner possible.

If you have actually ran 800m in D1, which I am now seriously doubting, you would know very well that training for the 800m requires FAR MORE time commitment than the distance events. It's not like we show up to the track and jog 5 miles and go home. We have to do biomechanics, drills, a buttloand of stretching (static and dynamic), weights, more drills, on top of the actual workout. We don't get to enjoy an easy "off season" of easy slow jogging to build our base. We constantly have to work to maintain our speed. And the worst part is, sometimes we'll get sucked into running a 4x400 (which requires additional training) or bumped up to the 1500m, which requires additional mileage. The 800m is truly no-man's land caught between sprinting and mid-distance, and it's an extremely tough event to excel at.

Sorry, didn't realize you asked. George Mason.

Where did you go to school?

And if you are an 800 guy, or course you will run the occasional 4x400. It's a great event! We had milers run it as well sometimes.

I am talking specifically about a "long run" day. The limit is arbitrary no matter what, but I went from maxing out around 65 minutes as a frosh to 90+ minutes as a senior because I needed to improve that area of my endurance.

BINGO!!!

+10

"D1" The question is not so much what you did as how good do you want to

be? Yes, the average program probably does have 800 guys with relatively short long runs.

To be a winner you cannot be average. To be a winner you cannot follow what the crowd does. You have to be unusual to be a winner.

You ran 1:50? That is a good time. However I ran with a guy who ran 1:52 at a D2 school and we had a "group" of guys who ran the 800!

AND it does matter A LOT whether you ran on clay, grass, cinder, or dirt tracks with 5 pound shoes or not!!! (Even the tracks of Coe, Ovett, and Scott are considered VASTLY inferior to today's speedy tracks.)

+9

You almost put that baby to rest!!!

The big point here is 800m runners can not be afraid of mileage. Hell long distance runners cannot be afraid of speed. Both go hand in hand. Training throughout the year should differ. In the true off-season an 800m runner should be building a big base, long runs, tempo work, etc.

I've coached beside a sprint coach who felt our distance athletes were doing too much. Now that I'm gone, said athletes are running subpar times. Why? Because he dropped them down to 20-30 miles a week rather than 50-70. The new distance coach has them following a similar regimen during cross country.

formerD1 wrote:

I ran 1:50 for the 800m. My longest run during base phase was 6 miles.

Radishes only runs 35mpw in base phase.

Who are these jackhoes suggesting a 12 mile long run? Are you literally stupid?

Maybe not stupid, but old school Lydiard coaches who believe in lots of miles.

Longest run for an 800m runner of 6 miles is good. I'd add that it should be run fairly quickly - not a jog.

You're not funny and you're a jackass. So glad I'm not some "formerly d1" has-been, just yet. Nobody respects you here, bro. Just remember that.

There is no perfect formula for training. Some 800 guys do a ton of speed development, some guys train more like a distance runner with a few quick workouts. Different people respond better to different kinds of training. There is no one size fits all.

Anyone giving an "answer" here is an idiot. But the question was stupid, too, so.

It depends on the runner.

The best thing for a given athlete could vary from 5-13 miles.

think for one second please wrote:

Anyone giving an "answer" here is an idiot. But the question was stupid, too, so.

It depends on the runner.

The best thing for a given athlete could vary from 5-13 miles.

Well duh, there is no one size fits all. I said that initially. I find it equally stupid when someone condemns higher mileage for a mid distance athlete. Distance is still more than 60% of that athlete's overall training regimen.

Distance/Mileage is important. Coaches that just stress speed and 20-40 miles a week better have some genetically talented athletes. Sadly those type of athletes are outliers and are in the minority.

formerD1 wrote:

I ran 1:50 for the 800m. My longest run during base phase was 6 miles.

Radishes only runs 35mpw in base phase.

Who are these jackhoes suggesting a 12 mile long run? Are you literally stupid?

What's your obsession with 'D1'? You seem to think it's the best thing ever yet how many runners from D1 actually become elite? 1.50 is good, but isn't gonna win you anything over the age of 16. If you weren't so obsessed with stupidly low mileage maybe you could have got into the high 1.40s, but it seems you were far too stubborn. Coe was a relatively low mileage runner but still ran 12+ mile runs since he was a teenager, and still did 80mile weeks in the base season BEFORE he ran 1.41. Snell did 22 mile runs and managed 1.44 on a grass track, probably worth a 1.42 today. Nijel Amos started out as a 5k runner. You seem to have got it into your head that 800m is only a speed event, yet it is about 70% aerobic, and one of the best ways to improve aerobic fitness is by running long. Very low mileage can work, but it is not the only way to train effectively and unless someone is gifted with ridiculous 400m speed a higher volume approach would be more appropiate.

The Big Bad Leroy wrote:

To be a winner you cannot be average. To be a winner you cannot follow what the crowd does. You have to be unusual to be a winner.

You ran 1:50? That is a good time. However I ran with a guy who ran 1:52 at a D2 school and we had a "group" of guys who ran the 800!

AND it does matter A LOT whether you ran on clay, grass, cinder, or dirt tracks with 5 pound shoes or not!!! (Even the tracks of Coe, Ovett, and Scott are considered VASTLY inferior to today's speedy tracks.)

I ran the 1:50 in HS, and that year was in the top 10 nationally by time, so I know a thing or two about "winning".

It was around the time I went to college that there was some sort of paradigm shift in the 800m, which most people who are not at the cutting edge of track are aware of. It models the Kenyan approach to distance running. Endurance can be built, but speed cannot. Top-level 800m runners are judged by their 400m ability, and add just enough endurance to get you over the line for 1 more lap.

I remember in HS, and probably most of you as well who are older, the 800m was primarily run by white kids who were also capable 1600m and 3200m runners. Nowadays, the field is over half black, and to a man they come from sprinting backgrounds. You have college kids running 1:44-45, just 3-4 seconds off the world record. Think about that. Whether you agree with the methods or not, the new paradigm of less mileage and high speed in NCAA programs is working.

So despite your incredible low mileage D1 program you plateued and never ran quicker than you did in high school? Seems the low mileage approach wasn't as amazing as you make out

Stop spewing bs wrote:

What's your obsession with 'D1'? You seem to think it's the best thing ever yet how many runners from D1 actually become elite? 1.50 is good, but isn't gonna win you anything over the age of 16. If you weren't so obsessed with stupidly low mileage maybe you could have got into the high 1.40s, but it seems you were far too stubborn.

First off, a 1:50 is basically guaranteed state champion in basically any state any year in at least the past 20 years that I have been following track. Also, a 1:50 will guarantee that you compete at nationals, and in most years, a time of 1:50xx will win nationals. So what are you smoking.

Also, I quit the 800m in college because I wanted to up my mileage. I ran with the XC team instead of doing 800m training year-round, and guess what? By the time indoor season came around and I tried to do some 200m repeats to test my speed, bam nothing. Speed was gone. In HS I could crank out 23s in my sleep. In the fall after XC season I would struggle to break 25s, and then I knew my 800m career was over.

Stop spewing bs wrote:

So despite your incredible low mileage D1 program you plateued and never ran quicker than you did in high school? Seems the low mileage approach wasn't as amazing as you make out

As I said many times on LRC, I chose to do XC and become a distance runner, which ruined me as an 800m runner. I am against high mileage for 800m runners because I am a victim of that. I know what high mileage (and the serious weight loss it entails) can do to your speed.

think for one second please wrote:

Anyone giving an "answer" here is an idiot. But the question was stupid, too, so.

It depends on the runner.

The best thing for a given athlete could vary from 5-13 miles.

Completely agree; run as many miles as you can while still being able to recover and still be able to retain the speed you need.

Furthermore, why is everyone here talking about the long run as if it's some super slow slog? Unless you're training for a super long race, the pace for the long run probably won't be too different from that for a regular one; thought of another way, you're getting the same aerobic stimulus you would get for a regular one, just for a longer duration.

Aplysia wrote:

Furthermore, why is everyone here talking about the long run as if it's some super slow slog? Unless you're training for a super long race, the pace for the long run probably won't be too different from that for a regular one; thought of another way, you're getting the same aerobic stimulus you would get for a regular one, just for a longer duration.

The problem is, you can't do both at the same time. Going for a long-ish progression run at a relatively quick pace is going to kill your legs, especially if you're on low weekly miles as it is. Imagine an 800m runner on 40mpw (which is probably the average these days for elite athletes), and that runner goes for a 10-13 mile progression run! That's going to either injure him, or completely destroy his legs so he can't get in a decent speed workout for a couple of days. It's completely detrimental to the development of speed.